User Profile: idontknow3

Member Since: June 08, 2011


  • [2] August 9, 2014 at 7:20pm

    A better name would be the P.T. Barnum center.
    Your idol is every bit the huckster Barnum was.
    Your man is an inflatable doll dressed up in a suit.
    There are some mighty powerful liberal white males behind your man, keeping him inflated.
    Thing about idols – they always break when they fall from the tall pedestal you put them up on. Always.

  • [2] August 9, 2014 at 6:50pm

    After finishing my little blurb above something occurred to me about America.
    When the English came to this land that eventually became America they were running from tyranny. Well, tyranny followed them. They planted their boots in the ground and said we are not going to run again. They fought against and defeated the greatest military might in the world at that time. They founded this nation and shed themselves of being English and became Americans. Still with faults, but nonetheless, Americans.
    They were not English Americans, but just Americans.
    Yet in America today some of us find fault in being just American. Many find, for some reason, they need to be African American, Asian American, Mexican American, Italian American, Irish American, German American, etc. If i were to move to Ireland would I want to be an American Irelander or an American African or American Germander? If I’m going to trouble to become a part of one these nations I am going to become a German, an Irishman or even an African. I will no longer be an American. Otherwise I would stay in America.
    You see where I’m going with this?
    Why is identifying our blood heritage so important.
    When the English won their independence they became Americans. They cut all associations with being English. In 1920′s and 30′s people that immigrated here dreamed of becoming and being called an American.
    Americans just need to be Americans. Isn’t that what we all are?

  • [2] August 9, 2014 at 6:28pm

    Duh!!! Do you think?
    The blacks that support Obama, and the policies of the Democrats, are no different than that little boy I just read about that is telling an Islamic interviewer why he wants to kill the infidels. He has been told he wants to fight and kill the infidels. So he just repeats what he has been told. Of course if he does not then he will killed or buried alive, or his parents will be killed in front of him or he will suffer whatever killing method is good for that day.
    Obama supporters hear it on TV and then they repeat whatever they heard. Just like little wind up toys they just do what is they do. They do not know to do any different. A tyranny cannot exist unless there are puppets on the sting. Why they allow this to be done to them is certainly one the great mysteries of the day. This president has been done more to harm the economic structure of blacks in this nation than any White president since the end of the civil war. He has all but killed any positive race relations that were achieved since LBJ.
    Blacks without jobs is the highest it’s been in decades. This is what has killed the inner cities. So, now Obama wants to just prop them up with borrowed dollars, increasing the national debt. Yet, he keeps fighting to get amnesty for 12 to 14 million Mexicans and put them on welfare and food stamps and Obamacare. Now it seems the military is going to need an infusion of cash to ward off the falling of Iraq.
    Up the creek, etc.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 16, 2014 at 11:47am

    OK, Glenn. Then, at what point do you pull out that gun and fire in defense against government? Just exactly and precisely what does government need to do that you would considered to be crossing the line that would require the use of arms? You have never made this very clear in any of your public speeches. Who, in government, has to be the initiator of of this action. When and who will “YOU” pull out your gun to defend you and your family against the tyranny of government officials?

    Glenn, clarify yourself for us all that follow your advice, concern and heartfelt desire for a better country. Please, define for us that line that would need to be crossed. Define it, specifically, so we all will know what it is. Otherwise, your language just feeds the beast, then restrains it from attacking those that would harm us all.

    To us out here, Glenn, time is the commodity that is being wasted. Minutes, hours, days, months, years just keep on rolling by and no one, that can and is being paid to do so, is doing anything to alter, change or rid America of those in government that just use it for personal gratification and to feed the policies that promote government dependency. Not you. Not anyone else of the conservative talking media business. Especially not anyone in the GOP or the conservatives in Congress. To them it all seems to be about political Congressional tactics that just consumes too much money and too much time…and we are running out of both.

    Responses (2) +
  • May 10, 2013 at 9:42pm

    This woman is, obviously, mentally unstable and historically uneducated which makes her unqualified to be determining law in any body of government. What this mentally incompetent woman doesn’t understand is that ability for her to have a Senate to serve in was won by the blood and guns of many New England British farmers and landowners that used those items to repulse the British and win the right for us to be a Nation to determine our own laws. Madam! The American citizen of today neither wants nor does he require or desire to protected by an incompetent Federal Government that can’t even protect an eight year old boy in Boston or a career diplomat in Benghazi. These two events alone demonstrate the absolute need for every citizen to be armed to the teeth in a society where the American Government favors those with hatred toward America over those with Constitutional Patriotical Fervor. You, madam, and those that agree with you are GUILTY of treason of the highest order and, by speech, are GUILTY of aiding and comforting the enemies of the United States of America.

  • April 30, 2013 at 4:59pm

    The only problem I have with this part of the law is what is to prevent my non-profit from getting a grant from the Federal Government to do a study on let’s say “The Most Energy Efficient Method of the Destruction of Firearms”? Government money used to destroy weapons. right? The article about all this on The Blaze doesn’t discuss this but I would hope there is language in this law that its intent and verbiage would not allow any publicly funded grants to private organizations that would allow those funds to be used to acquire these weapons. Those of you out there that can, and have experience in the grant process, should submit a grant application for something like “The Economic Value to Federal Green Energy Policies of Procedures and Methods to Prevent Federal, State and Local Government Involvement in the Control of Arms Possession of United States Citizens”. This study could be beneficial to liberals and conservatives. Now why on earth would a study like this be refused? This study would demonstrate that it would be in the best interest of the Presidents long term Green Energy Philosophy for all levels of Government to divest themselves of any attempts to “Infringe” the citizens right to bear arms. Well! That’s the way it looks to me! T.I.C.

  • April 30, 2013 at 3:14pm

    Two things:
    1. Let’s be clear”, “…right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is precise in its meaning and purpose. Although if there are certain numbers in our society who wish to forgo this “right” they do have have the freedom to do so. If Arizona wishes to purchase or reclaim these weapons from anyone who wishes to, freely and without coercion by Arizona, by all means they should. To complete this process Arizona should now make these weapons available to citizens that wish to own a firearm and cannot afford one. I believe that economic hardship should not be allowed to “infringe” anyone that wishes to own one to have to opportunity to get at least one weapon. All liability for the use of that weapon being transferred to the new owner releasing Arizona from irresponsible use of that weapon.

    2. This law, apparently, does not now allow the use of public funds to destroy these weapons. Yet it does allow private groups, or individuals, using private money to do so. For instance, If I have the money or maybe start-up a non-profit and collect money to purchase these weapons I can do so and then provide for their destruction. Sounds OK, right? The only problem I have with this part of the law is what is to prevent my non-profit from getting a grant from the Federal Government to do a study on let’s say “The Most Energy Efficient Method of the Destruction of Firearms”? Government money used to destroy weapons. Right?

    Responses (1) +
  • April 27, 2013 at 12:03pm

    “…that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;…” – William Shakespeare

    What matters is what something is, not what it is called. You liberals can call infanticide abortion, fetus termination, women’s rights, choice, right to choose, women;s healthcare or give it any name you wish so that it can be given a label and mis-directed and put in a legal category that, in your mind, might justify its use. But as Mr. Shakespeare so aptly said thru the voice of Juliet it is not what a thing is called that makes it what is. It is its character and nature. It is that in which is its bottom line. It is the causative effect of its application on that which receives its use. “Let’s be clear” In this case the murder of helpless children while being carried by their host mother. “Let’s be clear” Murder is murder. “Let’s be clear” The taking of the life of one human being by another human being is murder. “Let’s be clear” Calling it something else will never change that fact. “Let’s be clear” The politics of it conservative, liberal or whatever works for you will never change the fact that killing babies while residing in their host mother is murder. Removing the baby from the host mother and then killing it is still murder. It was murder in the past, it is murder today and will always be murder until the close of humanity. “Let’s be clear”!

  • April 27, 2013 at 11:12am

    “Let’s be clear” Be on the lookout soon ( in Obamacare ) for a law REQUIRING an abortion for any woman, single or married, who’s newborn child will need to be placed on public support. Any family or woman not being able to prove they can financially support a child or children without public assistance will be REQUIRED to abort those pregnancies. This will eliminate women receiving WIC support and any other child dependent public support. So, all of you women that are below the poverty level having kids and are getting public money to support them get ready for your wonderful president to lower the boom on you. Minorities will be affected most and, of course, this action will be without prejudice or appeal. This will be justified as his method to reduce some of the cost of Obamacare as well as other government spending to help bring down the deficit. Believe me, forced infanticide will not be the only atrocity this president will attempt before he gets out of office. So, Mr. Obama “Let’s be clear”!

  • April 27, 2013 at 12:44am

    “Let’s be clear” – Obama’s job is to protect and defend the helpless. His job as president is to make sure that those in our society that cannot fend for themselves are to be defended against those who would do them harm. I don’t believe there is anyone more helpless and in need of Presidential protection the a human infant in the first nine months of their life, especially since it is now legal to MURDER them. We cry and are outraged over an eight year boy killed by a terrorist in Boston but that same boy eight years and one month ago if his mother would have aborted this boy we would have said what a great career saving choice she made. I would ask Mr. and Mrs.Obama if he had taken Michelle to Dr. Gosnell so that she could abort one or both of his daughters so that Michelle’s career would not have be interrupted and the babies were alive would he allow this so called Doctor, or one of his aids, to put his living children to death anyway? All I can say is that this President is a disgustingly vile ridiculous excuse for a human being and so is anyone that agrees with any law that allows the sanctioned MURDER of pre-birth and after birth infants by Planned Parenthood, or any other group. So, “let’s be clear” about that.

    Responses (2) +
  • April 24, 2013 at 10:15am

    Hey Harry, the signers of the Declaration of Independence were citizens of England. They were not yet “Americans”. They were anarchists. Yes, and they did as you say, “Anything they can do to throw a monkey wrench into the wheels of government, they are happy to do that,” Yes. They were most happy to do that against King George III and his oppressive hand of rule. The “Tea Party” grass roots movement is working to do anything they can to disrupt “King George IV ( Obama )” and his merry men and women of frivolity that are working to destroy our American Constitutional Republic form of government to install a dictatorial form of Fascism that will regulate our every business and private action until no one can have a business, tax us into desperate financial dependency, and remove every bastion of Liberty possible from every individual citizen and do it under the guise of “National Security”. What irritates “Tea Party Patriots” is the fact, and I do mean fact, that there are no conservatives in Washington, D.C., elected to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, that are doing so. They are all working with the democrats to bring about a bigger, more invasive form of central government that will eventually have the 1st, 2nd, 4th amendments and Article 5 removed from the Constitution. Yes, Harry, 7/4/1776 anarchists – but don’t count on them to be non-violent much longer – and they will be declared terrorists by the DHS, right!

  • April 23, 2013 at 4:13pm

    Protection by an agency that is a part of a centralized government will never be able to protect the extremities of our nation. They are too sluggish, they demand that freedoms have to be given up in order for them to be able to do their job, etc., etc., etc. The DHS main function is to protect this centralized government, the DHS and their personnel. Protection against the threat and actions of the terrorists of today on the behalf of you and I must be two fold. First, local government and local law enforcement are the only ones that can react to local terrorist activity on any kind on a timely basis. So, they are the ones that should have authority and training to combat terrorist activity. These folks are the first responders to all terrorists acts in this country, anyway. If in Boston, then Boston law enforcement should handle it all. It appears that is what is happening. Not exactly true. The next step is that every American needs to understand that they are their own best defence against terrorist activity. Carrying a weapon is very important to this ability but knowing what to look for and always being aware of your surroundings is important. A terrorist will look just like you or me. But, you and I are not going to drop a backpack and just walk away from it. In order to do what they do in a public place someone will always be able to see their suspicious activity.

  • April 23, 2013 at 3:45pm

    Hey Veinarmor,
    I agree with your math on the election percentage. It’s like 54 million for Obama, 50 million for Romney, about 95 million ineligible to vote and about 130 million or so that chose to not participate in the process. This would equate roughly to your percentages based on 325 million people in America. Obama does not have a mandate to be able to push anything politically. So, how does he get away with it. 130 million people that live in apathy because the political process has made them that way. Also, because the elected conservatives in Congress continue to play the go along to get along political game that makes them feel important and garners them a nice retirement package, etc. Congress is a private club and the voting public is never invited to be apart of the “SECRET” stuff they seem to always have to do. Just remember when they speak of the “American People” they are never talking about you and I. Obama says what he does is for the “American People” then conservatives say that what they are doing is for the “American People”. Well, the little bit of math I know tells me there is only one “American People”. Somebody’s lying. Well, the 54 million people voting for Obama does not warrant they are the “American People” and the 50 million Romney got certainly isn’t the American people. 30% to 33% of eligible voters in America should not warrant either group being able to act on behalf of ALL of the “American People”.

  • April 23, 2013 at 10:39am

    Sorry – I had to edit what I wrote. I get so disgusted with these presumptive idiots my fingers can’t keep up with the things I want to say.

    The thing that needs to be done is TO LOOSE the false idea that a large central government can make it all better. Reagan said it best “Government is the problem – not the solution”. Politicians need to reevaluate the word “SERVANT”. Leave the Constitution alone.”

  • April 23, 2013 at 10:20am

    Hey Boom Boob Bloomberg,
    The Constitution is just fine the way it is. What we need to do is get rid of politicians that think the Constitution is there to be used for their personal method of social and environment control. What we NEED is for central government to get out of the citizen protection business and allow citizens through local government to protect themselves. NO protection from a central government is worth the loss of one iota of LIBERTY. When cameras are allowed to follow around politicians, especially on their “jaunts on behalf of the state” then and only then should they be used where citizens locate. Anyway, it wasn’t government cameras that were instrumental in finding and identifying the perps. It was the people with their own cameras that was the success story in Boston. What is this thing about the “interpretation” needs to change. Hey words are words. They mean what they mean. The “interpretation” of the Constitution isn’t Jello that conforms to the whims of whatever generational society of the day happens to be. We the people, in order to remain safe and protected from our own government, need to conform to the words of the Constitution, not the other way around. The thing that needs to be done is the false idea that a large central government can make it all better. Reagan said it best “Government is the problem – not the solution”. Politicians need to reevaluate the word “SERVANT”. Leave the Constitution alone.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 18, 2013 at 12:08am

    “Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington. More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby.”

    Hey Bloomberg – Do you know or are you even able to comprehend what Article 5 of the Constitution is for? I didn’t think so! Concerning the second amendment – there is a very simple phrase in it. You should learn it so that it becomes a part of who you are. It goes like this: “…shall not be infringed.” Say it with me: “…shall not be infringed.” What is it?:”…shall not be infringed.” Very good – now you’re gettin’ it. Something else – Neither the government, any elected officials or even both houses of Congress or the President of the United States nor the 90 percent of ( liberal Democrats that live in the Tribeca area of Manhatten ) Americans ( what a crock ) can “infringe” on “the right of the people to bear arms”. If you wish to control guns in the USA then the only method to accomplish this is thru the use of Article 5 of the Constitution. Otherwise, any of the aforesaid people attempting any action at all are in violation of “infringing” on all the people’s rights. Whether or not any of them wish to partake in that right.

  • April 15, 2013 at 11:07am

    You know what? I’ll bet every gang banger in all 5 boroughs of N.Y. were the first in line this morning to turn in their illegal clips and weapons. This is a law by completely useless, lazy, wealthy politicians that like do things on paper and call it doing something for real. They are only interested in looking good for the sheeple ( voters that politicians can round up and control like sheep ) that like to “feel good” about stuff. There are N.Y. police officers alive today that won’t be in 6 months solely due to this law. There are “law abiding” gun owners that will react, becoming a criminal under this law, and do things that they would not have done without this law. Lives will be changed – just not for the better. The sheeple will be the first to feel the sting of reaction to this law.

    Do the politicians care? Nope. Do they lead? Nope. Are they corrupt? Yep. Is corruption a criminal act? Yep. Will the sheeple throw them out of office because they are corrupt? Nope. Is governmental social engineering and dictatorial control over the sheeple the goal of these same politicians? Yep. Up to now have they succeeded? Absolutely!!! Why, you might ask? Read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”. This is the book that teaches radicals how to be when they get in elected office. Basically, turn the thinking voter into sheeple. From that point patronize, patronize and patronize. Suck them dry!!!

  • April 15, 2013 at 10:10am

    I’ve been asking my friends that go around bragging about how they won’t let anyone take their guns, etc. at what point in time do you actually load that gun and use it against someone who is trying to take it away? Is it when they come knocking at the door of your home or the sheriff pulls you over in your car tells you you need to surrender that weapon to him and it doesn’t matter if you have a concealed carry permit. Do you load it and take down to register it as an assault weapon in N.Y. and they tell you must give it up right there on the spot. When exactly do you commit to actually defend yourself against “Tyranny”. Do you even know what constitutes the act of tyranny by the government. Which government is it, anyway? Is it the state, the Federal or the county or city, which is it. Are you ready to shoot some guy trying to keep his job? Are you ready to to be arrested for conspiring to overthrow the United States of America? That is what you will be charged with. This U.S. government of tyranny will absolutely define you as a terrorist committing a terrorist act and you will most likely be shot on the spot or be used in a trial to present a negative image that you are a NRA patriot Tea Party radical defending Constitutional rights unconstitutionally. A government of tyranny will work hard to keep you from organizing with others that have weapons so you will not act as an armed group. I ask again “When will you use that “infringed” arm?”

  • April 11, 2013 at 7:26pm

    That’s why I said “…do a Google search for government welfare statistics based on race”….
    or for that matter any search engine that will take you the government’s own statistics. The facts are much different than what J.Carney or BHO tell us. Not enough room here to get into dialogue. If one fourth of those who voted for Obama would take the time to find out what is truth and separate it from Liberal political fantasy Obama would be brushed up with fresh hot tar and feathered and run out of office on a rail. Before you call me racist for my comments on the actions of those who finally get the truth, southern white politicians used this technique for removing other white corrupt politicians back in end of the nineteenth and the first part of the twentieth centuries. That can be looked up as well.

  • April 11, 2013 at 4:55pm

    First of all, in a sane society, the determination of one group’s propensity toward a behavioral pattern cannot be determined by simple observation by a different group in that society. The determinator must, by empirical rule, be a contributor of that same behavior in order to be legitimate in his claim against the former group. Otherwise, his claim can only be opinion and not fact because he has no empirical evidence or even statistics from which he can make the determination. To be an observer of a behavior uses just one of the senses for this person to draw from for his conclusion. This is like a court case in which a man is accused of murder and the prosecution has only one witness while the defense has ten ready to testify that the man wasn’t even there when the crime was committed. This guys conclusion only shows his own propensity for this kind of behavior. In reality I think it to be more a case of a professor teaching at a liberal college and getting his knocks in against the conservatives in order for higher position, tenure and just plain ole’ outright money. Liberals that knock at conservatives are finding there are good ole’ yankee dollars to be had for doing so. This guy is auditioning for Obama’s “Cuttin’ Conservatives for Cash” program”